"In the republic of mediocrity, genius is dangerous." - Robert G. Ingersoll
To
expand on my first article discussing Carlo M. Cippola’s essay “The
Basic Laws of Human Stupidity”, I want to look at each of the four
categories in detail.
Today’s focus is on the ‘intelligent’ group and where they are (and are
not) in society.
Cipolla’s
definition of an intelligent person is one who tends to usually make a
gain while yielding a gain to another. Or put more generally, one who
contributes
to society while at the same time producing a benefit for themselves.
This definition is a little different than what most people think of as
‘intelligence’, i.e. smarts and quickness of thought. But I think it is
a more accurate definition, at least when
considering intelligence in the framework of an entire society. How
many smart people do you know that, despite being quick-thinking or very
well-read or a math-whiz, manage to act in a manner that is
nonproductive or even counterproductive to either their
own or society’s welfare? Such people may be ‘smart’, but not
‘intelligent’. Depending on whether they themselves or society as a
whole realizes a loss, they would instead fit in the intelligent
subgroupings of the ‘helpless’ or ‘bandit’ groups, respectively.
At
the same time, this definition would include people that most would not
normally consider to be “intelligent”. Borrowing from popular culture,
Forrest
Gump would be a good example. The character may be slow-thinking and
not prone to deep thought, but at the same time he’s aware of his
limitations and still manages to go through life and not only benefit
himself (becoming wealthy) yet also yield a benefit
to others and society (opening a successful business among other
things). Sure it’s an extreme example and a story involving quite a bit
of luck, but it still applies. His sort-of-girlfriend Jenny on the
other hand, despite being quicker of thought than
Forrest, would fall in the ‘helpless’ category for most of her life as
she was often a victim of others and her own self-destructive behaviors.
So
who are the intelligent people in our society? From this definition,
it would include anyone whose lot in life improves while at the same
time making a
positive contribution to society, even if it’s a small one. This would
be the small, mid-size, or large business owner that offers a useful
service or product to society while providing people with the
opportunity for employment. Or the scientists, engineers,
inventors, artists, and ‘creators’ who not only bring new technologies,
ideas, and useful or aesthetic things into existence. Or the doctors,
nurses, and researchers that actually improve peoples’ health or expand
the frontiers of medical knowledge (note
that this doesn’t include ALL doctors and such… there’s a good number
that would fit in the ‘bandit’ category, otherwise the dysfunctional
state of American health care could not exist). Or the blue-collar
tradesman (carpenter, mechanic, plumber, etc.) or
service provider (trucker, janitor, repairman, housecleaner, etc.) who
manages to contribute a net positive to society, even if it’s a small
contribution, while still managing to save and turn that income into a
better life for themselves and their families
(it may be a lot harder these days for such people to personally
prosper in these occupations, but it still does happen). The scale of
the combined benefits to both society and themselves may put one person
like more solidly in this category than another
person, but as long there IS a net benefit realized for both themselves
and society they’d both be considered ‘intelligent’.
As
for myself? Well I suppose there are very few who don’t think of
themselves as being in the ‘intelligent’ group, right? I admit that I
do, but I will
also be the first to admit that my current contributions to society and the benefits I’m receiving in my career are not nearly as big as they
should be. Without going into detail, I currently work at an IT
job that, while providing some small benefit to the government
organization for which my company works, is not producing that much of
an overall benefit to society. Part of it is the nature
of the work, but the greater part of it is the fact that the client is a
government organization that is horribly run and inefficient (though by
comparison its parent organization and other government agencies it’s
probably a top performer). In fact if I were
to judge my contribution to society based solely on my current
job, given my job’s decent salary but minimal societal contribution I’d
probably be really close to that line crossing from the ‘intelligent’
group to the ‘bandit’ group, just because the job's effective contribution to society is so minimal. And
that is the biggest reason I will not only be leaving my job next year,
but do something entirely different by striking out on my own. I feel
if one has
the means and opportunity to do something greater, to not at least try
for it is not only cheating oneself but is also a bit of a slap in the
face to those who never get the same opportunities.
So I challenge you to ask yourself this.... how would you rate your job's or career's true contribution to society? Are you contributing, or are you actually taking more than you give?
No comments:
Post a Comment